Teams are ubiquitous in organizations, yet work contexts now make traditional teams—those that have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, and members who belong only to that single team—a rarity. Teamwork has evolved along with work itself, making the traditional means of studying and validating team experiences (e.g., agreement statistics) inadequate. Yet it is not merely that current measures are antiquated, many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct. We felt that rather than simply trying to further exploit our traditional approaches to studying teams, the field should explore new or different ways to capture the team experience. New ideas about how to study teams will necessarily start out as theoretical—arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. If those who study new forms of teams can then validate these theories, then such new approaches expand the field’s capabilities. Thus, over the next few issues of OPR, we will be featuring papers that present new stances on how to study real teams. Such papers will provide arguments as to why these approaches are legitimate and necessary, to hopefully help bring these new approaches to future empirical work on teams in the real world.

团队在组织中无处不在，但是现在工作环境使传统团队（具有可识别边界，稳定成员身份和仅属于该单个团队的成员）变得稀有。团队合作与工作本身一起发展，使得研究和验证团队经验（例如协议统计数据）的传统方式不足。然而，不仅仅是当前的措施过时，关于团队本身的许多假设不再正确。我们认为，该领域不仅要尝试进一步利用我们的传统方法来研究团队，还应探索新的或不同的方法来获取团队经验。有关如何研究团队的新想法必然会从理论上入手，这些论点是基于有纪律的想象力和实际经验得出的，这些新方法为何可信。如果那些研究新团队形式的人可以验证这些理论，那么这种新方法将扩展该领域的能力。因此，在OPR的下一期中，我们将重点介绍一些论文，这些论文提出了有关如何研究真实团队的新立场。这些论文将提供关于这些方法为何合法和必要的论点，以希望将这些新方法带入现实世界中的团队的未来实证研究中。我们将重点介绍一些论文，这些论文提出了有关如何研究真实团队的新立场。这些论文将提供关于这些方法为何合法和必要的论点，以希望将这些新方法带入现实世界中的团队的未来实证研究中。我们将重点介绍一些论文，这些论文提出了有关如何研究真实团队的新立场。这些论文将提供关于这些方法为何合法和必要的论点，以希望将这些新方法带入现实世界中的团队的未来实证研究中。